Upload
truongduong
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report to the Legislature
Juvenile Court Block Grants
December 2009
DSHS, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration
Administrative Office of the Courts
Office of Financial Management
Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 1 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Juvenile Court Block Grants
Table of Contents
Background ..........................................................................................................................2
Block Grant Proviso Objectives...........................................................................................2
Development and Implementation Process ..........................................................................3
Block Grant Proviso Committee ..............................................................................3
Funding Formula Sub-Committee ...........................................................................3
Outcome Measurement Sub-Committee ..................................................................3
Block Grant Proviso Recommendations ..............................................................................4
Funding Formula ......................................................................................................4
Block Grant Proviso Committee Funding Formula Recommendations ..................5
Promising Programs Protocol ..................................................................................6
Data Collection and Measurement Criteria..............................................................7
Changes in Process and Managing ..........................................................................9
Collecting and Distributing Information ..................................................................9
RCW 13.06.050 Changes .......................................................................................10
Appendix (List of Acronyms and Terms) ..........................................................................11
JRA - OFM Block Grant Recommendations ................................................... Addendum A
AOC - Juvenile Courts Block Grant Recommendations ................................. Addendum B
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 2 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Juvenile Court Block Grants
Background
The 2009 Legislature, through ESHB 1244 Sec. 203 (7) (a – c), required the DSHS, Juvenile
Rehabilitation Administration (JRA) to administer a block grant, rather than categorical funding,
to juvenile courts for the purpose of serving youth adjudicated in the juvenile justice system.
Identified agencies were charged with implementing this Block Grant Proviso. The Proviso
indicated that the agencies involved were to be JRA, the Office of the Administrator of the
Courts (AOC), the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and the juvenile courts. The
Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) would participate as consultants.
The move to a block grant funding structure was due in large part from the juvenile courts/AOC
proposal to the 2009 Legislature. The proposal emphasized that the transition to block grant
funding provides the juvenile courts with the flexibility to meet the specific needs of the children
and families in their courts. This gives the juvenile courts the ability to use evidence drawn from
their own operations about how to use state provided treatment funds to promote good outcomes
for youth and their communities. The AOC would help in this effort by developing data quality,
performance monitoring, and reporting that will inform court level decisions and provide
accountability to the Legislature. As a result of this proposal, and input from various parties
during the 2009 Legislative session, the Block Grant Proviso was put in place for
implementation.
Block Grant Proviso Objectives
The Legislature identified objectives that needed to be met in developing the process to
administer block grants to the juvenile courts. These objectives are as follows:
JRA shall administer a block grant rather than categorical funding;
Evidence based programs (EBPs) and disposition alternatives are funding priorities;
Establish criteria for promising practices;
Develop a funding formula that must take into account the juvenile courts average daily
population of program eligible youth in conjunction with the number of youth served in
each approved evidence-based program or disposition alternative;
Provide a report by December 1, 2009 to OFM and the Legislature on the changes to the
process of funding and managing grants to juvenile courts for serving youth adjudicated
in the juvenile court system. The proposal shall include but isn’t limited to:
o Accountability and information collection and dissemination changes;
o Process for making block grant of funds consistent with funding category and priority
requirements and promising practice opportunities;
o A program of data collection and measurement criteria for receiving the funds to
include targets of the number of youth served in EBPs and disposition alternatives in
which the juvenile courts and AOC have the responsibility for collecting and
distributing information and providing access to the data systems to JRA and WSIPP
related to program and outcome data;
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 3 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
o Changes in process and managing grants to juvenile courts;
o Necessary changes to WAC and RCW;
By September 1, 2010, WSIPP shall provide a report to OFM and the Legislature on the
administration of the block grant authorized in the proviso. The report shall include the
criteria used for allocating the funding as a block grant and the participation targets and
actual participation in the programs subject to the block grant.
WSIPP shall conduct an analysis of the costs per participant of EBPs in the juvenile
courts.
Development and Implementation Process
The oversight of the development and implementation of the block grant process was given to a
committee of four, in consultation with WSIPP. The committee (later identified as the Block
Grant Proviso Committee) is comprised of one representative each from JRA, AOC, OFM, and
the juvenile courts.
Block Grant Proviso Committee
The Block Grant Proviso Committee (BGPC) was formed in June 2009 to fulfill the previously
identified objectives. The Committee has met regularly since its inception and continues to
meet. The voting members are Adam Aaseby, OFM; Michael Merringer, Washington
Association of Juvenile Court Administrators (WAJCA); Ramsey Radwan, AOC; and Cheryl
Sullivan-Colglazier, JRA.
The process of developing a new funding formula included chartering a sub-committee with
cross-organization representation to test impacts of formula options and make recommendations
to the BGPC.
Funding Formula Sub-Committee
The Funding Formula Sub-Committee was formed in June 2009. Selected members of JRA,
OFM, AOC, WAJCA, and WSIPP comprised the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee was
tasked with providing the BGPC recommendations on the following items:
Identify a funding formula model that takes into account the juvenile court’s average
daily population of program eligible youth in conjunction with the number of youth
served in each approved evidence based program or disposition alternative (short and
long-term formula recommendations);
Develop promising practice protocols;
Identify considerations for this report.
Outcome Measurement Sub-Committee
The Outcome Measurement Sub-Committee was formed in November 2009. Selected members
of JRA, AOC, WAJCA, and WSIPP comprise the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee was
tasked with providing the BGPC recommendations on the following items:
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 4 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Identify measurement criteria for receiving the funds which will include targets of the
number of youth served in identified evidence based programs and disposition
alternatives;
Identify a process for information collection and distribution. The juvenile courts and
AOC have responsibility for collecting and distributing information and providing data
system access to JRA and WSIPP.
Block Grant Proviso Recommendations
The Block Grant Proviso indicated the BGPC’s process for making decisions was by majority
rule. The following decisions/recommendations are put forth as a result of this process.
Funding Formula
By September 1, 2009, the BGPC is to develop a funding formula that must take into account the
juvenile courts average daily population of program eligible youth in conjunction with the
number of youth served in each approved evidence-based program or disposition alternative.
Evidence based programs, based on criteria established by WSIPP, and disposition alternatives
will be funding priorities. The funding formula is to be applied to the following funding
categories:
Consolidated Juvenile Services (CJS)
Community Juvenile Accountability Act (CJAA)
Chemical Dependency Disposition Alternative (CDDA)
Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternative (SSODA)
Mental Health Disposition Alternative (MHDA)
Suspended Disposition Alternative (SDA)
Evidence Based Expansion (EBE)
The Funding Formula Sub-Committee was specifically tasked with identifying a short and long-
term block grant funding formula recommendation to the BGPC by August 1, 2009. The
principle behind a short term formula is to mitigate the fiscal impact to courts during early
implementation. The Sub-Committee reviewed the current formula and looked at the possibility
of blending the current funding formula factors with new factors. This Sub-Committee also had
to keep in mind that any change in the current funding formula factors would require a change in
statute to RCW 13.06.050.
In developing the funding formula recommendation, the Sub-Committee wanted to put forth two
important considerations for the BGPC to consider when making their final determination:
1. The current data needs more refinement and it will take time to complete this process;
2. The budgetary impacts that a change in the current funding formula will have on the
juvenile courts.
The Sub-Committee reviewed, discussed, and tested many different scenarios. The following
scenario was put forth to the BGPC as the short-term recommendation (see the table below for
the recommended funding categories and weights):
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 5 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
The existing formula would remain in place with the weights of the current factors
decreased by 15%. Four additional factors would be added in and given a weight of
15%;
Four new funding formula factors and weights:
o The percentage of moderate – high risk youth in each juvenile court as compared to
the juvenile court’s overall population of youth – 7%
o EBP Participants – 3%
o The percentage of youth who are eligible for a disposition alternative – 2.5%
o Disposition alternative participants – 2.5%;
Include a stop-loss percentage for at least the first year and possibly the first full
biennium. A stop-loss percentage is an imposed cap that limits the funding a juvenile
court can lose as a result of the funding formula change;
The short-term funding formula will begin implementation on July 1, 2010 (State Fiscal
Year 2011). The length of time the short-term funding formula would be in place was
not agreed upon;
Identify an advisory committee that is responsible for monitoring the status and progress
of the funding formula.
Current CJS “At-Risk” Formula Recommended Short-Term Formula
Categories Weights Categories Weights
At Risk Population 65% At Risk Population 65%
TANF 5% TANF 2.5%
Per Capita Income 5% Per Capita Income 2.5%
Minority Population 10% Minority Population 10%
Workload/Filings 10% Workload/Filings 2.5%
Manifest Injustice In 5% Manifest Injustice In 2.5%
Moderate/High Risk Youth 7%
Total 100% EBP Participants 3%
Disposition Alternative Eligibility 2.5%
Disposition Alternative Participants 2.5%
Total 100% TABLE 1
The Sub-Committee put forth to the BGPC the following long-term funding formula
recommendations:
Increase the new funding formula factor weights from 15% to 25%;
Four new funding formula factors and weights:
o Moderate – High Risk Youth – 15%
o EBP Participants – 5%
o Disposition Alternative Eligibility – 2.5%
o Disposition Alternative Participants – 2.5%;
The additional 75% funding formula factors and weights would come from existing
categories;
Simplify the formula by removing formula factors with less direct connection to program
need. This would require a change to RCW 13.06.050.
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 6 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Block Grant Proviso Committee Funding Formula Recommendations
The BGPC reviewed the Funding Formula Sub-Committee’s recommendations on the short and
long-term funding formulas. In addition, they asked WSIPP to develop an interactive model to
look at other funding formula options. The Interactive Model was a tool created by WSIPP that
allowed the BGPC to view different scenarios in their meetings.
The BGPC was not able to come to a majority rule on all aspects of the funding formula. The
following elements of the block grant funding formula were agreed upon:
The short-term funding formula, as recommended by the Funding Formula Sub-
Committee, will begin July 1, 2010 (State Fiscal Year 2011);
A stop-loss percentage will be included at 3%. The length of time this stop-loss
percentage will be applied has not been agreed upon;
The Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternative (SSODA) funding will not be
distributed through the funding formula. It will continue to be allocated as it currently is
– based on an average daily population;
The Evidence Based Expansion (EBE) funding will not be included in the first fiscal year
of the short-term formula;
The Mental Health Disposition Alternative (MHDA) and Suspended Disposition
Alternative (SDA) funding will be included in the short-term funding formula;
A committee will be formed to review and provide recommendations on the funding
formula.
The BGPC was not able to agree on a single funding formula recommendation. The Committee
members did not reach a majority rule on the following items:
The role and authority of the committee that will be formed to provide oversight of the
funding formula;
The funding formula implementation start dates; funding categories, and distribution;
Distribution percentages for the long-term formula;
The length of time a stop-loss will be applied.
JRA - OFM and AOC - juvenile courts will each be putting forth separate recommendations for
the final funding formula. Please see the attached Addendums for the two recommendations. Promising Programs Protocol
The Funding Formula Sub-Committee was also tasked with developing protocols for
implementing promising programs. The Sub-Committee, in consultation with WSIPP and the
CJAA Advisory Committee, developed and made recommendations to the BGPC on protocols
for promising programs. The following elements are included in the Guidelines to Determine
Promising Programs for Use in Washington State’s Juvenile Courts:
1. Identify Need
Courts determine need for a given program
2. Develop Program Outline
Design a program outline for the Community Juvenile Accountability Act (CJAA)
Advisory Committee to review
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 7 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
3. Review Program Outline
CJAA Advisory Committee reviews program outline to determine if the population
need is aligned with the program goals;
CJAA Advisory Committee determines if the court can proceed with designing the
program proposal
4. Design Program Proposal
Design a detailed program proposal for the CJAA Advisory Committee to review;
5. Review Proposal
CJAA Advisory Committee reviews submitted program proposal and makes final
determination if the program is considered ―promising‖;
Promising program funding should typically not exceed 15% of the court’s total
funding
6. Implement Program
Courts implement promising program;
Courts track data necessary for evaluation process
7. Evaluate Program
Evaluate using a rigorous research design;
The BGPC reviewed and approved the promising program protocols as developed.
Data Collection and Measurement Criteria
The BGPC Data Collection Sub-Committee met in November and was tasked with developing
recommendations for data collection and measurement criteria.
The Sub-Committee had the opportunity to hear from a Tacoma Urban Network staff that has
responsibility for collecting and reviewing the data from the Pierce County Juvenile Court
Decategorization (Block Grant) that has been in place for several years. They presented data on
current changes in risk and protective factors and how they link to recidivism. They also
discussed the usefulness of the Decategorization process as it relates to local learning and the
ability to provide feedback to their probation staff with an overarching philosophy of improving
outcomes for the youth and families they serve.
The Sub-Committee then discussed and agreed upon the following data collection and reporting
requirements for consideration by the larger BGPC.
Outcome Data Needs, Intermediate/Long Term
Intermediate: Changes in Risk and Protective Factors by program area. The items for
statewide measurement are:
o Protective Skills,
o School engagement,
o Peers,
o Family Functioning,
o Others (identified by individual courts)
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 8 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Long Term: Recidivism, to include by youth characteristics (age, gender, race/ethnicity,
risk level)
Program Administration Data Needs
Eligibility pools for youth in EBPs;
List of youth who started the program for both EBPs and disposition alternatives;
List of youth who completed the program for both EBPs and disposition alternatives;
List of youth who dropped out of the program, and their reasons
Data Elements to be Completed by the Courts
EBP Program Targets
o The Sub-Committee wanted to make sure it was communicated to the BCPC that
although the proviso stipulated targets for disposition alternatives, that there are
challenges in establishing these targets especially as funding is moved between EBPs
and disposition alternatives to meet local program needs;
o This will be included in the courts application for block grant funding at the
beginning of each biennium
Budget worksheet (one for all programs) identifying line-itemed expenditures
o This will be included in the courts application for block grant funding at the
beginning of each biennium
Budgets/Fiscal Reporting
o Each court will provide an annual year-end expenditure report by program. This
report will meet the current cost per participant and CJAA reporting requirements.
Additional System Reporting Recommendations
The Sub-Committee identified additional system reporting recommendations. They are as
follows:
Examine program impacts across the juvenile justice continuum. Identified measures are
as follows:
o Local and State (JRA) youth characteristics through a unified system of reporting;
o Offending history;
o Treatment responsiveness;
o Recidivism
Quality assurance (QA) reporting
o A report section that could be created by the CJAA Advisory Committee with the
following elements:
Promising programs reviewed and approved or denied;
Identify QA system needs/changes
An oversight group be identified to review the data collection and reporting requirements
on a yearly basis, possibly a sub-committee of the BGPC.
Annual report to the Legislature that includes the items identified for measurement. This
report could potentially replace the current CJAA Report to the Legislature. At a
minimum, the report would be distributed to:
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 9 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
o AOC
o JRA
o Juvenile courts
o Legislature
o WSIPP
o OFM
Implementation Timelines
The Sub-Committee discussed which of the data elements are currently available and which are
not. It was agreed upon that the elements are all currently available either through a court report
to JRA or in Assessments.com. There was also acknowledgement that there continues to be
issues with data accuracy in the Assessment.com software. There was concern expressed about
the inconsistent statewide application of the juvenile court risk assessment tool and that this will
need to be addressed to ensure the risk and protective factor data is accurate and valid.
AOC expressed the following regarding a timeline that would allow for an accurate single data
source (Assessments.com):
State fiscal year 2011 – implement measures to clean up the data;
State fiscal year 2012 – data collection and review;
State fiscal year 2013 – data ready to be used to drive the funding formula and for
outcome measurement.
Collecting and Distributing Information
The proviso language states that ―the juvenile courts and Office of the Administrator of the
Courts will have the responsibility for collecting and distributing information and providing
access to the data systems to the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration and the Washington
State Institute for Public Policy related to program and outcome data‖.
The system and associated data utilized for measurement and program management shall be
made available to the JRA and WSIPP, upon request, by the AOC and juvenile courts.
The BGPC is recommending a protocol be jointly established to ensure the information is being
shared as the proviso intended.
Changes in Process and Managing Grants to Juvenile Courts
The Data Collection Sub-Committee reviewed the current processes for collecting data and
program information and each of the associated data elements. The members acknowledged the
current reporting systems can be cumbersome and duplicative with multiple channels of data
collections. A unified system for data collection as it relates to client information would be
preferred. There was also agreement that the current system does support the ability to meet the
information requirements for the necessary program oversight functions. These functions
include, but are not limited to, cost per participant calculations as well as meeting the CJAA
Report to the Legislature requirements. Additionally, the current process does meet the fiscal
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 10 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
accounting components for managing the pass through funding; however some of this reporting
should be consolidated.
The Sub-Committee agreed that the annual report to the Legislature should be based on data
present in the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment System (single system) for all
information pertaining to eligibility, referrals, and treatment including outcomes and recidivism.
The Sub-Committee also acknowledged the need to continue with the current reporting process
to JRA until the data clean-up process is complete and the single system of reporting is available
through the Assessments.com software. There was acknowledgement that the juvenile court’s
move to the new Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT) should increase the report
responsiveness and accuracy as it relates to the software.
RCW 13.06.050 Changes
The current funding formula and its factors are based on RCW 13.06.050. The statute indicates
the following:
―The distribution of funds to a county or a group of counties shall be based on criteria including
but not limited to the county's per capita income, regional or county at-risk populations, juvenile
crime or arrest rates, rates of poverty, size of racial minority populations, existing programs, and
the effectiveness and efficiency of consolidating local programs towards reducing commitments
to state correctional facilities for offenders whose standard range disposition does not include
commitment of the offender to the department and reducing reliance on other traditional
departmental services.‖
The BGPC is recommending a small change to RCW 13.06.050. The change being requested is
as follows:
Change ―shall‖ to ―may‖;
With this change the sentence will read like this:
o ―The distribution of funds to a county or a group of counties may be based on criteria
including but not limited to the county's per capita income, regional or county at-risk
populations, juvenile crime or arrest rates, rates of poverty, size of racial minority
populations, existing programs, and the effectiveness and efficiency of consolidating
local programs towards reducing commitments to state correctional facilities for
offenders whose standard range disposition does not include commitment of the
offender to the department and reducing reliance on other traditional departmental
services.‖
In addition, the BGPC is recommending that WAC 388-710 be amended to include an outline of
the funding formula criteria.
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 11 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Appendix Juvenile Court Block Grants
List of Acronyms and Terms
AOC: Administrative Office of the Courts
ART: Aggression Replacement Training. A Cognitive Behavior Therapy program using
skill building that has been rigorously evaluated and reduces recidivism with juvenile
offenders.
BGPC: Block Grant Proviso Committee. Committee of four establish by the 2009
Legislature in ESHB 1244 Sec. 203 (7) (a) for the purpose of implementing block grants to
the juvenile courts.
CDDA: Chemical Dependency Disposition Alternative. A program giving youth with
chemical and substance abuse issues a disposition alternative in the community offered
through the juvenile courts.
CJAA: Community Juvenile Accountability Act. State-funded program that supports
evidence-based treatment for youth on probation in the juvenile courts.
CJS: Consolidated Juvenile Services ―At-Risk‖. A program that provides funds to local
juvenile courts for the purpose of serving youth on probation.
COS: Coordination of Services. An evidence based program that provides an educational
program to low-risk juvenile offenders and their parents.
DMC: Disproportionate Minority Contact
DSHS: Department of Social and Health Services
EBE: Evidence Based Expansion. State-funded program that supports evidence-based
treatment for youth on probation in the juvenile courts.
EBP: Evidence-Based Program. A program that has been rigorously evaluated and has
shown effectiveness at addressing particular outcomes such as reduced crime, child abuse
and neglect, or substance abuse. These programs often have a cost benefit to taxpayers.
FFT: Functional Family Therapy. An evidence-based family treatment model that reduces
recidivism by juvenile offenders.
FIT: Family Integration Transitions program. A version of Multi-Systemic Therapy that is
an evidence-based family intervention model used by JRA to treat youth with co-occurring
disorders.
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 12 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
JRA: Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration. The Department of Social and Health
Services administration responsible for the rehabilitation of court-committed juvenile
offenders.
MHDA: Mental Health Disposition Alternative. A disposition alternative offered through
the juvenile courts.
MI: Manifest Injustice: A term that refers to a decision to sentence a youth to a term of
confinement outside the standard range set by statute.
MST: Multi-Systemic Therapy. An evidence-based family treatment model that reduces
juvenile offender recidivism.
OFM: Office of Financial Management
RCW: Revised Code of Washington
SDA: Suspended Disposition Alternative. A disposition alternative offered through the
juvenile courts.
SSODA: Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternative. A disposition alternative offered
through the juvenile courts for juvenile sex offenders.
VOM: Victim Offender Mediation. An evidence based program for low-risk juvenile
offenders where both parties, the offender and the victim, agree to a face-to-face meeting
with a trained, neutral, mediator.
WAJCA: Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators.
WSIPP: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 13 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Addendum A
Block Grant Recommendations DSHS, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration
Office of Financial Management
The 2009 Legislature required the Department of Social and Health Services, Juvenile
Rehabilitation Administration (JRA) to administer a block grant, rather than categorical funding,
to juvenile courts for the purpose of serving youth in the juvenile justice system. The block grant
approach to funding was incorporated in the 2009 – 11 Washington State Biennial Budget based
on a request from the juvenile courts and Office of the Administrator of the Courts (AOC). Four
organizations were charged with jointly working on specific elements of the Block Grant Proviso
- JRA, AOC, the Office of Financial Management (OFM), and the juvenile courts. The
Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) also participated in a consultation role.
The four organizations formed a Block Grant Proviso Committee (BGPC), as required in the
2009 – 11, Washington State Operating Budget, to complete a work product by December 2009.
The BGPC members met a number of times from June 2009 to December 2009 to discuss and
analyze potential funding formula options and impact that any new funding formula would have
on individual counties. During the six month work period there was much discussion.
Agreement was reached by all four voting members on many elements of the block grant,
including a short-term formula and principles that align with that formula. JRA - OFM and AOC
- juvenile courts agreed to make separate recommendations in regards to a long-term funding
formula.
Basis of Formulas – Statute and the Principles
Interpreted statutory intent and the development of key principles to guide decision making are
central to the JRA – OFM recommendations. The following outlines these recommendations.
Statutory Requirements
Ensure programs that have demonstrated cost savings to the State continue to be prioritized
(Evidence Based Programs (EBPs) and Disposition Alternatives (DAs). The current
categorical structure targets funding for EBPs and DAs at approximately 60% of the total
available funding;
Use measurement data to ensure EBPs and DAs are prioritized as courts match to their local
needs;
Provide outcomes and feedback to juvenile courts to effect program change and
process/program improvements.
Principles
Keep youth close to their families and communities;
Serve youth and families with programs that work to reduce the number of victims of crime
and save the State money;
Reboot funding formula to match the local pool of eligible youth and youth served to funding
for the programs;
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 14 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Maximize State funding by treating the highest risk youth with programs that work in local
communities. This approach prevents youth from coming to JRA or Department of
Corrections consistent with the current prison reduction model;
Mitigate impacts to court programs;
Ensure addressing over-representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system remains
a focus of the formula and outcomes (Disproportionate Minority Contact);
Provide continued analysis of the implementation progress and adjust as necessary, based on
current data.
Simplify the formula to make it more transparent to lawmakers, the juvenile courts, and the
public.
Based on these drivers, the following approach will assist in minimizing immediate fiscal
impacts to individual juvenile court programs, provide opportunity for improved data collection
and accuracy, as well as allow time for juvenile courts to adapt their practices regarding how
they utilize their funding. This formula allocates funding to the juvenile courts so that the
highest risk youth who are more likely to be imprisoned in the adult or juvenile systems will be
diverted from the high costs of incarceration and there will be fewer victims of crime. The
greatest reductions in recidivism and greatest cost/benefit are achieved by using EBPs. It will
also provide an emphasis to prioritize committable youth with Disposition Alternatives (DAs),
effectively maximizing savings to the State and allowing youth to stay in their communities with
their families.
Phased In Formula Approach
A phased in approach to implementing the formula was agreed upon by the Committee early in
the discussion as a way of mitigating impacts to juvenile court programs. The focus was to have
a short term formula and long term formula. The idea of the short term formula is to allow time
for the juvenile courts to make necessary changes to adapt to the new formula (see page 5 of the
full Report for details). Additionally using a short term formula at initial implementation will
provide time to improve data collection systems and reliability. Another mitigating factor is the
implementation of an oversight committee to review formula impacts. The BGPC agreed
delaying the start date to the beginning of the next fiscal year (July 1, 2010) could assist in
making a smoother formula transition.
The specific JRA – OFM Long Term Funding Formula Elements and associated rationale are
detailed below. There is also additional detail on key items that are central to these
recommendations.
Long Term Formula Elements, Percentages, and Rationale
The JRA - OFM recommended long term formula was developed using the Interactive Tool,
dated October 30, 2009 and produced by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
(WSIPP) at the request of the BGPC. The Interactive Tool was chosen by JRA and OFM as it
effectively prioritizes the highest risk youth, using data driven weighting as well as addressing
the priorities required by the Block Gant Proviso and does so in a transparent manner.
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 15 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
The Interactive Tool also allows for the ability to perform a detailed analysis of the impacts to
juvenile courts based on changes in the individual category percentages. Each of the
recommended percentages and associated rationale is detailed below. Other block grant factors
could be added such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and per capita income
so that Disproportionate Minority Contact continues to be addressed from a multi-faceted
perspective.
The following long term formula prioritizes funding based on a juvenile court’s pool of eligible
youth, participant rates in EBPs and DAs, and the minority population (to assist in impacting
racial disproportionality). The new funding categories direct 45% of the formula on these
priorities, while 55% continues to be directed at the broader eligible pool of youth and the
minority population.
At Risk Population: 37.5%
Rationale
This percentage currently represents an approximate percentage that ―At Risk‖ funding
comprises of the total Block Grant funding. It continues to be a good representation for the
eligible pool of youth to be served in the juvenile courts, as this is the population of 10 – 17 year
old youth in the communities served by a juvenile court.
Evidence Based Practices Participants: 25%
Rationale
This category provides increased weighting for the higher impact programs and provides funding
incentives for courts to use EBPs and serve the highest risk youth. This category represents EBP
participants (Proviso Required)
Minority Population: 17.5%
Rationale
Disproportionate Minority Contact continues to be a significant issue in the Washington State
Juvenile Justice System. There is a disproportionate number of youth of color who end up in the
juvenile justice system. This number increases the further into the justice system one looks, with
the highest levels of disproportionality typically being found in youth who are incarcerated.
Ensuring funding is provided to juvenile courts to continue work on these disparities is important
including work to ensure youth of color are proportionately receiving EBPs and DAs. Minority
Population funding was represented in the old formula at 10%.
Risk Assessment (Moderate and High): 15%
Rationale
This provides increased funding for courts that have the highest number of moderate and high
risk youth – eligible pool of youth. This also prioritizes funding where the greatest cost/benefit
can be achieved and for youth that pose the highest risk for future criminal behavior. This
category represents the eligible pool for EBPs (Proviso required).
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 16 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Chemical Dependency Disposition Alternative (Disposition Alternative) Participants: 3%
Rationale
This category represents the largest disposition alternative program and provides funding
incentive for courts that use this program. The majority of these youth are not committable to
the State and as such do not represent the savings associated with committable youth.*
Consequently the weighting is less than the proportion of funding the program currently
represents. This category represents Disposition Alternative Participants (Proviso Required)
*All other DAs target youth that would otherwise be placed in the custody of the JRA, as
opposed to this program which primarily serves youth who would not be eligible for placement
in JRA and as such, do not represent significant cost savings to the State.
MHDA/SDA (Disposition Alternative) Participants: 2%
Rationale
This category also represents Disposition Alternative Participants (Proviso required) but is only
used by a small number of courts and has significantly less funding than other DAs. This
percentage matches to the current funding level for this DA.
The Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternative (SSODA) will continue with the current
caseload funding process – by average daily population (ADP)
Rationale
This program is significantly more costly than the other Disposition Alternatives and using
participant data does not effectively fund the courts at the level of current utilization.
Stop Loss to Minimize Impacts
Using a stop loss* percentage mitigates impact to court programs. A stop loss at 3% was agreed
upon by the four voting members. The JRA – OFM recommendation allows for the stop loss for
at least the first fiscal year of implementation with the short term formula and the following
biennium (first full biennium of Long Term Formula Implementation). An analysis will occur
for ongoing stop loss need before the end of the three year time frame.
*Stop loss is a cap on the amount of funding any court may lose for any State Fiscal Year
compared to the previous year, in this case 3%.
Measurement Data to Prioritize Evidence Based Practices (EBPs) and Disposition
Alternatives (DAs)
As discussed in the Report, measurement and outcome data is an important element of this Block
Grant package. Adding EBP and DA categories to the funding formula is one step in prioritizing
the use of these programs for higher risk youth. A matching step is to add measurement data that
determines how juvenile courts are prioritizing their funding in regards to EBPs and DAs.
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 17 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
To reinforce this emphasis, JRA will use measurement data to focus priority spending on EBP
and DA programming. As a part of program administration, targets will be developed with the
juvenile courts to monitor state fund spending on EBPs and DAs. This work will be balanced
with another component of the intent of the Block Grant which is to assist juvenile courts in
determining how to best match these programs to the local needs of the youth and families they
serve in order to get better local outcomes.
Outcomes and Feedback to Programs
JRA will have access to the juvenile courts and AOC risk assessment data as needed in order to
look at identified outcomes on both individual court levels and statewide. JRA will continue to
take a collaborative approach with the juvenile courts, AOC, and WSIPP to structure this work
while maintaining program and quality assurance oversight. This information will be shared with
the juvenile courts, EBP Quality Assurance Specialist and JRA Program experts to better assist
the court and JRA in interpreting and utilizing the data to effect program change and
process/program improvements.
Funding Formula Oversight Committee
The purpose of this committee will be to assess the ongoing implementation of the Block Grant
Funding Formula, utilizing data driven decision making and the most current available
information. Chaired by JRA, this committee will represent at a minimum JRA, juvenile courts,
AOC, OFM, and WSIPP and will include the following:
A process which allows for decision making based on a collaborative approach, with
consensus preferred;
Juvenile court representation across small, medium and large courts to ensure the needs
of all counties are considered;
JRA representation from program and quality assurance experts and field offices;
Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators representation related to
financial, EBP, and risk assessment quality assurance committees;
AOC and WSIPP consultation regarding data and research.
There are currently several committees that could be modified to meet the membership
requirements as outlined above. Any existing committee will need to be restructured to match to
block grant monitoring needs.
This oversight group will meet as needed, no less than two times each year (prior to the
beginning of each fiscal year and at the mid-point of each fiscal year). The first 2-3 years of
implementation will likely require more frequent meetings. The group will be empowered to
make recommendations for adjustments to the funding formula in order to best achieve the
legislative intent and desired outcomes of the Block Grant funding process.
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 18 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Addendum B
ADDENDUM
JUVENILE PROGRAMS – PROVISO COMMITTEE
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF JUVENILE COURT ADMINISTRATORS
and
ADMINSITRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
This addendum describes the position of the Judicial Branch partners (WAJCA and AOC) in
areas where the block grant proviso committee membership was unable to reach consensus. The
proviso committee achieved general agreement on areas that need policy-level improvement.
Yet fundamental differences remain between Judicial Branch partners and representatives from
the Executive Branch regarding roles and responsibilities within the process, funding rationale,
and administrative accountability. The addendum addresses each ―objective‖ agreed upon by the
block grant proviso committee, and outlines the joint position of WAJCA and AOC on
objectives where consensus was not reached.
It is important to note that the proviso allowed the workgroup to consider improvements to the
system that provides state funding to juvenile courts and the roles in that system played by the
state pass through agency (JRA) and the courts (WAJCA). For more than 20 years, juvenile
court operations have been jointly funded by state and local money. At its inception the
―probation subsidy‖ was intended to offset high caseloads at JRA institutions by funding local
supervision of youth who otherwise would have been sent to a JRA facility. Currently high JRA
caseloads are not an issue as the State has successfully invested in juvenile court practices that
have lowered offending, recidivism, and the use of JRA’s residential placement services. As a
result of the transformation to the juvenile justice system to one that relies on applying evidence-
based treatment to the needs of youth and families in the community, the responsibilities of
juvenile justice stakeholders need to be redefined.
An issue that surfaced during the 2009 session is whether JRA or WAJCA played the primary
leadership role in establishing the thorough and systematic process of evaluating and treating
juvenile offenders with Evidence Based Practices (EBP) we have today. On the cusp of the
2010 session, the judicial branch partners offer a vision of the juvenile court system that
contain programmatic advantages and realignment of stakeholder responsibility. It is the
courts who have been focused on improving treatment effectiveness and delivering better
outcomes for youth. In contrast, JRA has been more focused on control, rather than
improvement, of State-funded court-based programs. Consider as an example the JRA-
implemented duplicative and time consuming system of data collection that supports the annual
report to the Legislature but yields very very little information to the courts about their success or
needs in engaging and treating adjudicated youth. After over 20 years there has been
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 19 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
administrative drift and a loss of focus on youth outcomes at JRA, causing unnecessarily
complicated administrative oversight for the courts.
The judicial branch partners, WAJCA and AOC, jointly propose an improved system of
stakeholder oversight and responsibility (see table below). The following stakeholders have
critical responsibility in overseeing the juvenile court offender programs.
WSIPP, on the front end has the responsibility for identifying the EBPs and provides
ongoing consultation to the assessment process.
WAJCA embodies juvenile court leadership and is responsible to implement EBPs and
Quality Assurance (for programs and assessment).
WSCCR evaluates the impact of EBPs, reform designs to establish a Research Oriented
Quality Assurance Center, and actively plans to increase regular communication with the
Legislature (through an annual report and legislative briefings).
JRA continues to have a role in managing state pass through funds and contract
oversight.
WSIPP Juvenile Courts AOC-WSCCR JRA
Monitor
Application of
Assessment Tool
Participate in
CJAA Oversight
Assess
Promising
Programs
Consult with
WSCCR on
Outcome
Measurement
Conduct CMAP
– Assessment and
Case
Management
Administer
Evidence Based
Programs
Apply Outcome
Measurements to
Ensure Program
Compliance
Establish QA center for
Assessment/Programs
Measure Outcome of
Assessment/Programs
Draft Family and
Juvenile Court Report
for the Legislature
Ensure Fiscal
Accountability of
Courts for Block
Grant
Participate in
CJAA Oversight
Although the courts contend that the state funding would be better managed at AOC, the
Legislature was not interested in transferring funding from the Executive Branch to the Judicial
Branch in 2009. Since JRA will continue to act as the pass through agent, WAJCA proposes a
simplified fiscal account reporting structure. The judicial branch partners advocate that the
primary role of JRA be one of fiscal oversight and contract management.
To accomplish fiscal accountability, a simple and transparent system of expenditure verification
needs to replace the current overly complicated system that lack JRA accountability.
The judicial branch partners’ request, intended to fulfill the promise of the block grant system, is
to (1) establish Quality Assurance Center at the Washington State Center for Court Research
(WSCCR) and (2) establish one reliable data source. When the quality assurance process is
managed and coordinated at the Quality Assurance Center (WSCCR), courts will provide direct
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 20 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
responsiveness and accountability to the Legislature through and annual juvenile court report and
periodic program updates.
Objective 1
Funding formula determined by September 1, 2009 – consideration of current funding formula
and potential blending of new and current formula factors; test formula for impacts including
those related to court size and location
The agreed upon formula requires two additional data elements representing the court’s use of
Evidence Based Programs (EBP) and Disposition Alternatives (DA). The proviso directs that
EBPs and DA be funding priorities. Note below that the current CJS at Risk Formula distributes
approximately 50% of the total funding to EBPs through the CJAA category and (DA) through
the Special Sex Offender Disposition Alternative (SSODA) and the Chemical Dependency
Disposition Alternative (CDDA). The new formula adds 15% weighting to EBPs and DA. The
proviso committee, after consideration of alternative methods to divide the funding, adopted the
formula below.
The following table provides a side by side comparison of the current At Risk Formula (as
directed by statute) to the adopted new formula (including the additional criteria from the
proviso).
Current CJS At Risk Formula New CJS At Risk Formula
65% At Risk Population 65% At Risk Population
5 TANIF 2.5 TANIF
5 Per Capita Income 2.5 Per Capita Income
10 Minority Population 10 Minority Population
10 Workload/Filings 2.5 Workload/Filings
5 Manifest Injustice In 7 Manifest Injustice In
3 High/Mod Risk
100% Total 2.5 EBP Participants
2.5 Disp. Alt Eligibility
2.5 Disp. Alt Participants
100% Total
This formula design incorporated two additional criteria without modifying the underlying
statute that directs the division of juvenile offender funding. The AOC and WAJCA agreed to a
long term formula that would increase the weight of EBPs and DA from 15% to 25% after three
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 21 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
fiscal years. The block grant proviso committee could not reach agreement on the long term
formula or implementation.
Because of the tight deadline the underlying statutorily required elements remained unchanged,
and the two new factors were added. The data sources underlying the additional factors of the
formula were researched and proposed by the WSCCR. The proviso committee considered
various data elements that translate closest to the language of the budget proviso to match the
intent of the legislation. As a policy matter, the WAJCA and AOC agree that the formula
ultimately needs simplification. Ideally, the number of factors can be reduce to target funding to
the courts who are serving the moderate to high risk population of offenders, while encouraging
development of programs in courts where the penetration rate of serving kids with evidence
based programs is low.
The courts and AOC are committed to clearly analyzing the impact of the state’s investment,
measure the impact, and report both the use and impact to the Legislature (see Objective # 4 (c)).
We are confident in the juvenile court system of offender management based on assessment,
intervention, and outcome measurement. To that end, the juvenile courts have launched a
process to validate data collected through the assessment process. Since this data will
increasingly become the basis for funding distribution, it must be an accurate reflection of
juvenile court operations. Once the courts complete the quality validation process, the policy
goal of increasing reliance on the data as a basis for funding distribution is widely endorsed by
WAJCA and AOC.
Objective #2
Incorporate promising practice into block grant package
The ―Guidelines to Determine Promising Programs for use in Washington State’s Juvenile
Courts‖ was unanimously agreed upon by the proviso committee and included in the report.
Objective #3
Determine formula implementation date – make the block grant work in the first FY 2010; Test
proposal impacts
After careful consideration of the (1) intent of the proviso language (2) volatility of adding
factors to the existing At Risk Formula and (3) necessary time and workload to validate the
existing data that underlies the formula, the proviso committee unanimously agreed that the new
funding formula be applied starting in Fiscal Year 11. After rejecting the long term funding
formula proposed by WAJCA and AOC, the proviso committee failed to agree upon a long term
formula to increase weighting of EBPs and DA.
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 22 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
Because the committee could not reach consensus on the long term formula, in the alternative
WAJCA and AOC propose a funding formula oversight committee make additional
modifications to the At Risk Formula in future budget cycles. The committee would be tasked to
continue efforts and recommendations consistent with movement toward simplifying the formula
and applying the formula to as many funding categories as is appropriate. This committee would
also have ongoing responsibility to evaluate and possibly adjust the formula prior to each
biennial funding cycle. Ongoing oversight and possible modification of the formula is necessary
because future needs of the courts may change, statewide economical outlook will change, and
further research will identify innovative and efficient ways to manage offender populations that
might impact the scheme to distribute funding.
Specifically, the recommendation is that the funding formula oversight committee be convened
as a subcommittee under the existing CJAA committee structure. CJAA already has
representation from interested stakeholders who have experience in managing juvenile court
programs (WAJCA) and those who manage the pass through funding process (JRA). Further,
both research groups are represented on CJAA, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
(WSIPP) and the WSCCR. The courts and AOC are committed to clearly analyzing the use of
state money, measure the impact, and report both the use and impact to the Legislature.
The funding formula oversight committee will have authority to modify the funding distribution
formula. There is no need to establish a separate administrative body to conduct the ongoing
work outlined below. Each agency represented will appoint a member and the work of the
committee can be added to the CJAA charter.
WAJCA and AOC propose the following timeline and authority for the funding formula
oversight committee:
1. Meet in March of each year preceding the beginning of a biennium (beginning in March
of 2010)
2. Agreement and presentation of the funding distribution formula by the end of May
3. Block grant contracts be sent to courts by June 15th
, prior to the start of the new fiscal
year
4. The funding formula oversight committee will include five voting members who
represent: WAJCA, AOC, JRA, Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee
(GJJAC), and Superior Court Judges’ Association (SCJA) with consultation from WSIPP
5. If consensus cannot be reached within the funding formula oversight committee, the
options will be proposed to the CJAA committee for a vote
The executive branch partners proposed an alternative long term funding formula reflected in
their addendum. As recommended, the funding formula would be applied in FY 12, the
beginning of the 11-13 biennium. This formula results in drastic gains and losses to courts and
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 23 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
has been opposed by the WAJCA and AOC. It disregards the promising aspects of a block grant
fiscal management strategy by redirecting existing resources away from courts that are funding
EBPs to counties that need to expand or establish EBPs. The spirit of the block grant fiscal
management strategy should refocus and improve reporting and enhance Quality Assurance, but
if the JRA - OFM formula were put into place after just one year, courts would be disadvantaged
to fulfill the promise of block grants.
Objective #4 (a)
Deliver proposal on funding and management by December 1, 2009 – make recommendation for
broader changes and include:
o Accountability and information collection and dissemination changes - Process for
making a block grant of funds consistent with funding category and priority requirements
and promising practice opportunities in (a) of subsection
The WAJCA and AOC propose a reporting structure that communicates to the Legislature the
use and impact of juvenile offender court programs on an annual basis. The courts wish to
increase direct communication and accountability with the Legislative Branch. The reporting
structure is outlined in Objective 4 (b).
The logical process for making the funding distribution formula match the legislative criteria is
to establish an ongoing and stable committee to review and analyze the formula on a structured
schedule. A funding formula oversight committee, including the stakeholders assigned to the
proviso committee, is defined in Objective 3. That committee, once institutionalized in the
funding formula development process, can adjust the formula or underlying data sources to be
consistent with the funding categories and legislative priorities.
Objective #4 (b)
Deliver proposal on funding and management by December 1, 2009 – make recommendation for
broader changes and include:
o A program of data collection and measurement criteria for receiving the funds to include
targets of the number of youth served in EBPs and disposition alternatives
The WAJCA and AOC’s Center for Court Research are jointly conducting a data review and
reconciliation process. The goal of this process is to assure that all counties adhere to the
mandatory minimum standards for Case Management and Assessment Process (CMAP). The
statewide data review and reconciliation effort on behalf of the WAJCA will assist counties
consistency with assessment results and eligibility data. The quality assurance specialist will
review the assessment process, case management, and outcome measurement methodology with
each court. Once this process is completed, counties can use the data as a quality assurance
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 24 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
measurement on how their court is maximizing efforts to serve their juvenile offender
populations based on risk level and their criminogenic needs profile.
Objective #4 (c)
Deliver proposal on funding and management by December 1, 2009 – make recommendation for
broader changes and include:
o Juvenile courts and AOC have responsibility for collecting and distributing
information and providing access to the data systems to JRA and WSIPP related to
program and outcome data
Movement to block grants is congruent with the courts’ goal to provide the Legislature with
thorough and relevant briefings on the impact state funding has on the juvenile court operations.
Previously, the summary reports were provided to the Legislature either through JRA (as
mandated by statute) or when reductions to budget required impact statements. The JRA reports
are output oriented. They fail to provide meaningful content, show no program analysis or
outcome evaluation, and do not provide impact measurement.
The juvenile courts and the WSCCR propose an annual report of the juvenile courts to the
Legislature. The juvenile court system as a whole has an interest in monitoring the performance
and impact of operations and working to continually improve outcomes and cost effectiveness.
They seek to have the Legislature informed at regular intervals in a complete, coherent, and
objective way.
The WAJCA and AOC agree to produce an annual court report to the Legislature and
simultaneously to other interested stakeholders. The report will include data that courts input
through the assessment process. Improvements to the assessment process are already underway
by the statewide commitment to the Quality Assurance Plan managed jointly by the WAJCA and
the WSCCR. The annual report design is comprehensive and refocuses the purpose of reporting
to carefully measure the impact of the state’s investment in juvenile programs. It is our intention
to increase accountability, transparency, and responsiveness to the Legislature.
Objective #4 (d)
Deliver proposal on funding and management by December 1, 2009 – make recommendation for
broader changes and include:
o Necessary changes to WAC (short and long term) and RCW
The proviso committee agreed upon changes to the RCW and WAC as identified in the report.
Conclusion
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 25 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
In 2003, the Legislature authorized a pilot program for Washington juvenile courts so that pilot
sites could manage juvenile court operations with a block grant rather than traditional categorical
funding. The three block grant courts have benefited from increased flexibility to address the
criminogenic needs of the local juvenile population. The sites have become expert in using data
to manage, evaluate, and adjust their programs. According to officials in Pierce County Juvenile
Court, a block grant site, the new funding method fits well with
their goal of continually improving outcomes for youth and families because of the effectiveness
of court-based programs. In other words, the pilot has given the courts freedom to respond to
local conditions and the ability to do so based on outcome data. If properly implemented,
statewide block grant funding should also aid courts by reducing the burden they bear in
maintaining one record system for operations and separate systems to meet current reporting
requirement. The WAJCA and AOC vision is that the benefits of improved programming,
accurate outcome measurement, and efficient operations be realized in all of the State’s juvenile
courts.
In addition to improving juvenile courts’ programmatic and fiscal responsiveness to their
communities, block grant funding can lead to improved fiscal accountability to the Legislature.
To do this, block grant fiscal management requires an enhanced system of data collection,
analysis and reporting to deliver the necessary transparency and accountability in juvenile court
operations. Unlike current reporting, the proposed performance reporting system will use a
single data source to; 1) meet the State’s need for information about the eligible population, the
proportion receiving treatment, and the impact of treatment on behavior and recidivism and; 2)
meet the courts’ needs for information useful to manage individual cases, staff workload and
performance, and planning/budgeting.
The juvenile court Quality Assurance system, coupled with the AOC’s Washington State Center
for Court Research (WSCCR), has the capability to design, implement, and sustain a vigorous
performance reporting system. WSCCR features staff and leadership with training and
experience in evaluation and reporting, and has a particular strength in juvenile matters.
The courts are committed to putting the structure and expertise in place that is necessary to
evaluate the block grant funding. Currently the juvenile courts and WSCCR are working to
measure and improve the quality of data available from the Washington State Juvenile Court
Assessment—it is this data source that will support both local management reporting and
comprehensive annual program reporting to the Legislature. The annual proposed report (see
Objective #4 (c)) will have three main features:
A broad perspective on juvenile offending that begins with analysis of offenses that result
in referrals to court and ends with analysis of recidivism
A focus on youth who serve local sentences and sanctions and their State-funded
treatment—their characteristics, eligibility for treatment, assignment to treatment
2009 JUVENILE COURT BLOCK GRANTS PAGE 26 OF 27
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE DECEMBER 2009
programs, treatment completion rates, behavior and attitude changes associated with
treatment, 18-month re-conviction rates, as well as analysis of treatment assignment and
effectiveness by treatment program, by youth demographics (age, gender, race, ethnicity)
and by jurisdiction
Analysis of the health of the treatment programs and the supporting juvenile probation
practice; that will include the capacity and availability of treatment programs and their
costs as well as analysis of treatment provider and probation counselor competency with
regard to delivering services or connecting youth to treatment and supporting youth and
family engagement with treatment.